A Study on the Performance Evaluation System of Microfinance Companies Under Dual Objectives
PDF

Keywords

Microfinance companies
Dual objectives
Performance evaluation system

DOI

10.36922/ssr.v4i1.1316

Abstract

Microfinance companies are the result of China’s rural financial reform. Since their creation, they have been undertaking the responsibility of effectively allocating financial resources and guiding the flow of funds to rural areas and underdeveloped areas through the introduction of private capital. The emergence of microfinance companies has intensified the competition in rural financial market and built a new pattern of rural financial service systems. As a result driven by multiple objectives, these microfinance companies must face the issue of how to integrate microfinance services for the “three rurals” (rural economy, rural community, and rural residents) as well as small, medium, and micro enterprises with their own finances in a sustainable and effective manner. On the basis of dual objectives and with full consideration of the characteristics of China’s microfinance companies, this study has constructed a performance evaluation system exclusively for commercial microfinance companies in China by drawing on the performance evaluation system of foreign micro-credit institutions through analytic hierarchy process and Delphi method.

References

China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC), 2006, Several Opinions on Adjusting and Relaxing the Access Policy for Banking Financial Institutions in Rural Areas to Better Support the Construction of a New Socialist Countryside, CBRC Issue, No. 90.

China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC), 2008, People’s Bank of China: Guiding Opinions on the Pilot Program of Microfinance Companies, CBRC Issue, No.23.

Yaron J, 1992, Successful Rural Finance Institutions, Word Bank Discussion Paper, No.150, Washington D.C.

Christen P, 2001, Commercialization and Mission Drift, Occasional Paper, CGAP, Washington D.C.

Copestake J, 2007, Mission Drift: Understand It, Avoid It. World Development, 43(9): 731-755?

Zheng Z, Wang X, 2012, Can Microfinance Institutions Achieve the Dual Goals of Serving the Poor and Being Financially Sustainable? – Statistical Evidence from International Microfinance Market and Its Enlightenment. Problems in Agricultural Economy, 2012(1): 98-109.

Zeller M, Meyer RL, 2002, The Triangle of Microfinance: Financial Sustainability, Outreach, and Impact, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Morduch J, 1999, The Microfinance Promise. Journal of Economic Literature, 37(4): 1569-1614.

Cull R, Demirgüç-Kunt A, Morduch J, 2008, Microfinance Meets the Market, The Financial Access Initiative.

Mersland R, Strom RO, 2009, Performance and Governance in Microfinance Institution. Journal of Banking and Finance, 33(4): 662-669.

Sinha S, 2002, The Performance of Rated Microfinance Institutions in South Asia. Small Enterprise Development, 13(2).

Sinha F, 2006, Social Rating and Social Performance Reporting in Microfinance: Towards a Common Framework. EDA/M-Cril, Argidius, and the SEEP Network. https://seepnetwork.org/files/galleries/30 9_4660_file_Social_Performance_Rating.pdf

Zhang S, Yang Z, 2011, Evaluation and Introspection on the Dual Performance Target of Microfinance. Finance and Economics, 12: 9-12.

Zhao X, 2016, Construction of Social Performance Evaluation System of Rural Microfinance Companies. Northwest Normal University Social Science Edition, 53(03): 139-144.